Introduction

Is Old Earth Biblical?

Guest author, Jon Greene presents an overview of
why the Bible supports an old earth interpretation of creation. Contrary
to the common perception of young earth creationists, old earth
creationists hold a high view of the biblical texts.

Rich Deem

One of
the most fundamental doctrines held dear by Christians is God’s creation of the
world and all living creatures. Yet among evangelicals, an ongoing controversy
exists regarding the age of the earth and when God created the universe and life. Indeed, the “young-earth” vs. “old-earth” debate is one of the most polarizing and divisive issues within the Christian
community.

This
paper presents the biblical case for “old-earth creationism” (OEC) and
endeavors to clear up theological misconceptions regarding OEC held by many
well-intentioned “young-earth creationist” (YEC) believers. The purpose is not
to dissuade young-earth believers from their position, but rather to propose
OEC as a well-reasoned, Bible-honoring view that has been embraced by scholars
such as Francis Schaeffer, James Boice, and Norman Geisler.

Old earth beliefs

Before
presenting a more detailed explanation of OEC, here is a brief summary of core
beliefs. Old earth creationists contend:

God miraculously created the universe from nothing (ex nihilo), created life from non-life,
and progressively intervened in history to supernaturally create new species of
life.

The age of the earth has no bearing on the creation
of life. An ancient earth does not equate with Darwinian evolution.

Darwinian evolution (change through unguided
naturalistic processes) is unbiblical, biologically untenable, and not
supported by the fossil record. Old-earth creationists adamantly reject the
Darwinian concept of common descent—the hypothesis that all plant, animal, and human life ultimately evolved
from primitive single-celled organisms through unguided mutations and
naturalistic processes.

God miraculously created Adam and Eve, humanity’s
historical parents, who were new distinct creatures from whom humanity’s sin
originated.

Earth’s geologic features formed over long ages
through both gradual and catastrophic processes.

Genesis 1 is a literal account of God’s creation. After
God created the heavens and the earth, He then created life over six successive
“days,” which in the original Hebrew may be literally interpreted as long
epochs of time.

Old Earth Believers

Old-Earth
Creationism (AKA “day-age” or “progressive” creationism) is distinct from other
types of creationism, namely Gap theory, Framework Hypothesis, and Theistic
Evolution. The most prominent 21st century proponent of OEC (progressive
creationism) is Reasons to Believe, an international, non-denominational
ministry founded by astronomer Hugh Ross, Ph.D. While young-earth believers may
regard the OEC view as lacking Biblical authority, many conservative
theologians and well-respected Christian apologists embrace the old-earth
hermeneutic and vigorously defend Biblical inerrancy, including the following:

20th century Theologians: Gleason
Archer and R. Laird Harris (co-authors, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament), James Montgomery Boice (Chairman of the
International Council on Biblical Inerrancy), Francis Schaeffer (founder of
L’Abri Fellowship), R.A. Torrey (Editor, The Fundamentals (A.D.1907-1917), Edward J. Young (whose work was regarded as
“the epitome of conservative exegetical orthodoxy”).2

So what
exactly do old-earth creationists believe? Below are the fundamental beliefs of old-earth (“day-age”)
creationism.

The Bible

Proponents
of OEC believe the Bible is the inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God and
believe the Genesis creation account to be historical narrative—not myth, allegory, legend or poetic
expression. While YECs believe a “plain reading” of the English translation of
Genesis 1 necessitates belief that God created the world in six 24-hour days
some six to ten thousand years ago, OECs believe that textual and grammatical
nuances of the original Hebrew suggest six long epochs of time. Indeed, OECs
contend a literal reading of the
Biblical creation accounts in Hebrew provides certain exegetical clues pointing
to prolonged creation “days.”4

Creation days

Biblical
Hebrew has a very limited vocabulary (approximately 3,100 words) compared to
the English vocabulary (estimated to be 1,000,000 words). Hebrew words often
have several literal meanings.5 Linguistic scholars
acknowledge the Hebrew word yôm (translated
“day” in English) has several literal meanings: a period of daylight, 12-hour day, 24-hour day, time, period of time
with unspecified duration, and epoch of time.6 While modern English has numerous words to describe a long time-span, no word
in biblical Hebrew adequately denotes a finite epoch of time other than yôm.7

Hebrew
linguist Gleason Archer writes, “On the basis of internal evidence, it is this
writer’s conviction that yôm in
Genesis could not have been intended by the Hebrew author to mean a literal
twenty-four hour day.”9 Dr. Norman Geisler states,
“Numbered days need not be solar. Neither is there a rule of Hebrew language
demanding that all numbered days in a series refer to twenty-four hour days. Even
if there were no exceptions in the Old Testament, it would not mean that ‘day’ in Genesis 1 could not refer to more than one twenty-four-hour period.”10

Note,
however, there are Old Testament verses where yôm attached to a number actually does refer to long time periods. Here
are two examples:

Hosea 6:2,
He will revive us after two days; He will
raise us up on the third day. This refers to Israel’s ultimate restoration
hundreds or thousands of years in the future.

Zechariah 14:7, describing
the Day of the Lord, contains yôm echad (translated “unique day”), which is identical to
yôm echad of Genesis 1:5 (translated “one day”). The context of
Zechariah 14:7-8 suggests yôm echad will be a period of time spanning at least one summer and one winter, obviously
longer than a 24-hour calendar day.

Archer
and Geisler also point out that no definite article (“the”) appears with yôm
on days one through five in Genesis
one. Archer says the absence of “the” implies a more vague meaning than 24
hours—an indefinite but literal sense of time or age.

Similarly,
YECs claim “day” (yôm) accompanied by
the phrase “and there was evening and there was morning” necessitates a 24-hour
day interpretation. Others dispute that
assertion, suggesting the phrase was merely intended to communicate that each“day” or epoch had a definite beginning and ending. For instance, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary states, “These
are not ordinary days bounded by minutes and hours, but days of God…The
beginning of each act of creation is called morning, and the close of that
specific divine act is called evening.”11 Noted Hebrew linguist Gleason Archer concurs: “Concerning the recurring
[evening and morning] formula at the end of each creative day…there were
definite and distinct stages in God’s creational procedure…it serves as
no real evidence for a literal twenty-four-hour day concept on the part of the
biblical author.”12 Other Hebrew language
scholars (C. John Collins, Bruce Waltke, and Rodney Whitefield) agree the
evening/morning phrase does not necessitate a 24-hour day interpretation.13 Collins comments that the
order of evening and morning is a time-span that includes no daylight. While it
is commonly thought that evening/morning represents a “day,” Collins says
“Logically, this is nonsense [since] a day must describe 24 hours or at least a
period of daylight.” He further states “and there was evening, and there was
morning” brackets the night and marks
the end points of each workday of God.14

Furthermore,
the seventh day lacks the concluding refrain, “and there was evening and there was morning,” suggesting a
non-ending day. The ongoing nature of the seventh day is implied in Hebrews
4:1-11, which describes God’s Sabbath rest: “Therefore,
while the promise of entering his rest still stands…” (Hebrews 4:1). Verse
4 clearly ties God’s rest to the seventh day of creation, “And God rested on the seventh day,” while verse 6 states
“Since therefore it remains for some to
enter it.” If God’s seventh day were limited to 24 hours, it would be
impossible for believers to enter it now. Though the work of creation has ceased, God’s
ongoing work of bringing salvation to humanity continues: “Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said…Let us therefore strive to enter that
rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience” (Hebrews
4:3,11).

Many in
the young-earth community point to Exodus 20:9-11 as evidence for a creation
week of 24-hour days: For in six days the
LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the
seventh day. Reference to the Sabbath in Exodus 20 illustrates God’s pattern of six days of work and one day
of rest, not their duration: God’s six yôms (epochs) of creating and one of rest. Man’s six days of work and one
day of rest. The land’s six years of cultivation and one year of rest
(Leviticus 25:4). Gleason Archer notes, “By no means does this demonstrate that
24-hour intervals were involved in the first six ‘days,’ any more than the
eight-day celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles proves that the wilderness
wanderings under Moses occupied only eight days.”15

Here
are the views of several respected scholars on the meaning of the creation
“day” (yôm):

R.A. Torrey (1856-1928),founder of Talbot Seminary and editor
of The Fundamentals (12 volumes,
published in 1910): “Anyone who is at all familiar with the Bible and the way
the Bible uses words, knows that the use of the word ‘day’ is not limited to
twenty-four hours. It is frequently used to denote a period of entirely
undefined length…There is no necessity whatsoever for interpreting the
days of Genesis 1 as solar days of twenty-four hours length.”16

J. Gresham Machen
(1881-1937), considered the last of the great orthodox Princeton theologians: “It
is certainly not necessary to think that the six days spoken of in that first
chapter of the Bible are intended to be six days of twenty four hours each. We
may think of them rather as very long periods of time.”[17]

Edward J. Young (1907-1968),
regarded as the epitome of conservative exegetical orthodoxy: “But then there
arises the question as the length of these days. That is a question which is
difficult to answer. Indications are not lacking that they may have been longer
than the days we now know, but the Scripture itself does not speak as clearly
as one might like.”[18]

James Montgomery Boice
(1938-2000), chairman of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy: “[Young-earth]
creationists insist that the days cover a literal 24 hours, but this is not
necessarily the case. Sometimes the word ‘day’ is used with a broader meaning…it can mean a period of indefinite duration.”19 “Any view that makes the earth 12 to 20 thousand years old flies in the face of
too much varied and independent evidence to be tenable. In my judgment the
earth and universe are indeed billions of years old.”20

Both
young-earth and old-earth creationists believe the Bible is inspired and defend
their views as being literal. The issue is interpretation of the Genesis text. Bruce Waltke asserts young-earth exegesis is hindered by
an adherence to a “woodenly literal” reading of Genesis.21 Gordon Wenham concurs: “Six days has been seized on and interpreted over-literally,
with the result that science and Scripture have been pitted against each other
instead of being seen as complementary.”22

The when of creation

The
Bible does not specify the age of creation. The YEC belief that God created the
world 6,000 years ago originated from a mid-17th century examination of the
Genesis genealogies by Archbishop James Ussher and theologian John Lightfoot. Based
on the ages of patriarchs, Ussher and Lightfoot both calculated the universe,
earth, and life were created in 4004 B.C. Over the next several centuries, this
date became firmly entrenched in Christian belief. The cornerstone of belief in
a 6,000-year-old earth rests solely on the genealogies providing a totally
accurate and complete chronology. Is it?

In the
late 19th and early 20th centuries, Professor William Henry Green and
theologian Benjamin B. Warfield noted gaps and omissions in the Genesis
genealogies. This suggested the creation was conceivably older than the 6,000-year timeframe proposed by Ussher and
Lightfoot. Today many Bible scholars believe the Genesis genealogies were written
primarily to provide only highlights and not necessarily a complete record of every actual generation.23 R.A. Torrey (1856-1928
A.D.), who was selected by D.L. Moody to become the first dean of the Moody
Bible Institute, wrote the following of Bishop Ussher’s chronology: “Its
accuracy is altogether doubtful. It is founded upon the supposition that the
genealogies of Scripture are intended to be complete, but a careful study of
these genealogies clearly shows they are not intended to be complete, that they
oftentimes contain only some outstanding names.”24 There are gaps in the genealogies. Wayne Grudem writes, “…closer inspection of
the parallel lists of names in Scripture will show that Scripture itself
indicates the fact that the genealogies list only those names the biblical
writers thought it important to record for their purposes. In fact, some
genealogies include names that are left out by other genealogies in Scripture
itself.”25

As evidence the genealogies are telescoped
(compressed or abbreviated), scholars point to examples such as the genealogy
of Moses, which appears four separate times in Scripture (Exodus 6:16-20,
Numbers 26:57-59, 1 Chronicles 6:1-3, 23:6-13). Moses’ genealogy is given as
Levi to Kohath to Amran to Moses. As straightforward as this seems, related
Bible passages suggest that several generations were likely skipped between
Amram and Moses.26 1 Chronicles 7:20-27 provides a parallel
genealogy of Ephraim, son of Joseph (brother of Levi), from the same period of
history as the Mosaic genealogies. While only 4 generations are listed from
Levi to Moses, 12 generations listed from Joseph to Joshua during the same time
period.

MOSES’ GENEALOGY

JOSHUA’S GENEALOGY

Levi

Joseph

Kohath

Ephraim

Amran

Beriah

Raphah

Resheph

Telah

Tahan

Ladan

Ammihud

Elishama

Nun

Moses

Joshua

It has
been suggested that the Mosaic genealogies are perhaps only
20 to 40 percent complete. Those who hold that the genealogies are telescoped
place the creation of Adam and Eve around 10 to 30 thousand years ago, but
perhaps as late as 60,000 years ago.27

Experts
in Old Testament genealogy note there is wide-spread consensus regarding dates
and chronology from the time of Abraham. However, prior to Abraham, there is
little available Biblical or historical information on which to build a solid
chronology. Grudem specifically mentions “prior to Abraham, the setting of
dates is very uncertain.”28

In
addition to gaps and omissions, genealogical words such as “son” (Hebrew ben), “father” (ab), and “begat” or “fathered” (yalad)
are central to this issue. “Son” (ben)
has many literal meanings: son,
grandson, great-grandson, great-great-grandson, or descendent. “Father” (ab) can
literally mean father, grandfather, great-grandfather,
great-great-grandfather and ancestor. “Begat” or “fathered” (yalad) is not limited to just the
immediate generation, but can also apply to distant generations. R.A. Torrey
noted, “The word translated ‘begat’ is sometimes used not of an immediate
descendent, but of succeeding generations.” Further, “son” may be a literal son
or a distant descendant many centuries removed.29 A good example can be found in Genesis 46:15, which enumerates the offspring of
Jacob and Leah: “altogether his sons and
his daughters numbered thirty-three.” A careful look at this genealogy
reveals that the “sons” (ben)
included multiple generations of sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons.

As a
result, the early Hebrew convention of including just the most historically
important individuals in the genealogical record, coupled with the broad
meanings of ben, ab, and yalad, raise
serious questions whether the Genesis genealogies may be regarded as an
absolute chronology pointing back to a 6,000-year-old earth. The genealogies
themselves provide a rationale for human origins dating earlier than six to ten
thousand years ago.

Creation of the universe and heavenly bodies

When
the universe was first proved to have a beginning, cosmologists were
up-in-arms, since they had always believed in an eternally-existing universe
with no First Cause. Astronomer Fred Hoyle coined the term “Big Bang” as a term
of derision, while Sir Arthur Eddington, a British cosmologist, said,
“Philosophically, the notion of a beginning to the present order of Nature is
repugnant…I should like to find a genuine loophole.”

Atheists
attribute the Big Bang origin of the universe 13.8 billion years ago to purely
naturalistic mechanisms, theorizing the universe is “self-caused” or just
“popped into existence.” However, OECs believe the Big Bang supports the
creation account in Genesis 1:1 with God speaking the universe into existence,
creating it from nothing (creatioex nihilo).

Genesis
1:1 is an amazing statement of God’s miraculous creation of the universe: In the beginning (re’shît), God created
(bara) the heavens and the earth (ha’shamayim we ha’erets).

Beginning (re’shît): Hebrew scholar John Sailhamer
states, “Since the Hebrew word translated ‘beginning’ refers to an indefinite
period of time, we cannot say for certain when God created the world or how
long He took to create it. This period could have spanned as much as several
billions years, or it could have been much less; the text simply does not tell
us how long. It tells us only that God did it during the ‘beginning’ of our
universe’s history.”30 Whitefield notes that re’shît does not allow an instantaneous
creation. The word suggests a period of time of unstated length which precedes
the conditions described by Genesis 1:2. “Genesis 1:1 places no limits on how
old the universe may be.”31 C. John Collins suggests
that the perfect verb form used in
Genesis 1:1 distinguishes “the beginning” from the six-day creation narrative
of Genesis 1:3-31, which is written with the wayyiqtol verb form.32 The time period between
“the beginning” and the creation week is unstated in the text.

Created (bara): The Hebrew
word for “created” (bara) means to
create out of nothing. It is a completed verb form, meaning only that the creation was accomplished at some point in the
past.

“The heavens and the earth” (ha’shamayim we ha’erets): This
Hebrew phrase (known as a merism) means “all the raw materials needed to make
sun, planets, stars, nebulae, galaxies, molecules, atoms”33,
“the entire universe”34, or “the organized
universe, the cosmos.”35 This matches perfectly with
the view of the big bang beginning—a cosmological singularity from which all
matter, energy, space and time originated, and clearly supports ex nihilo creation as described in
Genesis 1:1 and Hebrews 11:3: By faith we
understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is
seen was not made out of things that are visible.

Respected
Christian philosopher William Lane Craig notes, “This cosmological singularity,
from which the universe sprang, marked the beginning, not only of all matter
and energy in the universe, but of physical space and time themselves. The Big
Bang model thus dramatically and unexpectedly supported the biblical doctrine
of creatio ex nihilo.”36

One
bone of contention is when the sun and moon were created. As noted above, “the
heavens and the earth” (ha’shamayim we
ha’erets) is inclusive of the sun and moon, suggesting they were created “in
the beginning.” However, YECs point to the fourth creation day (Genesis
1:14-18) as evidence the sun and moon were created later. Let’s examine the
passage.

Genesis 1:16 says, And God made (Hebrew asah)
the two great lights. In contrast to the verb “create” (bara), the verb
asah expresses making something from pre-existing material, not ex nihilo creation of Genesis 1:1. Further,
it does not specify when God made the
heavenly bodies, only that the task was completed.37 Several Bible scholars believe Genesis 1:16 is more accurately interpreted as
meaning God had made the heavenly
bodies prior to the fourth day.38 James Boice writes, “It is
not said that these [sun and moon] were created on the fourth day; they were
created in the initial creative work of God referred to in Genesis 1:1.”39 (For those wishing to delve
further into the Biblical Hebrew grammar and verb forms, please see footnote
below on Whitefield’s “The Fourth Creative ‘Day’ of Genesis: Answers to
questions about the Sun, Moon, and Stars.”)40

One
additional detail of the original Hebrew merits consideration. Genesis 1:14-15
tells us, And God said, “Let there be
[hāyāh] lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the
night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years”…And it was so. Verse 14 focuses on the function of the lights (“for seasons, and for days and years”) rather than their origin.
The completed-action phrase, “And it was so,” confirms the sun and moon had
completed the functions God commanded in Genesis 1:14-15 (providing signs,
seasons, days and years) for at least one cycle. The completion of the cycle of
seasons, days and years requires much longer than 24 hours, and therefore is an
additional indication the creation yôm is
a long time period.41

Age of the earth

The
Christian faith is based on truth. Scripture speaks of man knowing the Creator
from His creation:

The heavens declare the
glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out
speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there
words, whose voice is not heard. Their measuring line goes out through all the
earth, and their words to the end of the world. (Psalm 19:1-4)

For what can be known about
God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible
attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly
perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been
made. So they are without excuse. (Romans 1:19-20)

Philosopher
and theologian Augustine of Hippo believed that science could not contradict
orthodox Christianity because the Creator God and the Redeemer God are one. Truth
cannot contradict truth.

Old-earth
creationists accept the geological and cosmological estimates of a 4.5 billion
year old earth. Scripture speaks not of a young earth or an old earth, but an
ancient earth: Hear O mountains…you
everlasting foundations of the earth (Micah 6:2). The ancient mountains crumbled, and the age-old hills collapsed
(Habakkuk
3:6).

Multiple
independent evidences confirm an ancient earth, including 40 different methods
of radiometric dating and numerous non-radiometric measurements: Ice core
samples from Antarctica and Greenland provide an unbroken record of annual ice
layers spanning the past 800,000 years. Annual tree ring records provide a
continuous record of the past 15,000 years. Coral reefs record long ages of
growth (Eniwetok Reef 140,000 years, and the Grand Bahama Reef 790,000 years). Ancient
annual lake varve sediments provide evidence of earth’s history dating back 15
to 20 million years.42

Augustine
presciently wrote, “In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision,
even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different
interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have
received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our
stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly
undermines this position, we too fall with it.”43 Copernicus and Galileo were castigated by the Church for advocating the
cosmological theory of heliocentrism (earth revolving around the sun), which
the Church deemed contrary to their geocentric understanding of Scripture
(Psalm 93:1, Psalm 104:5, Ecclesiastes 1:5). Ultimately scientific discovery
helped clarify Scripture and prompted correction of a faulty interpretation.

Young-earth believers attribute virtually all of
earth’s geologic characteristics to catastrophic processes that occurred during
the flood of Noah. OECs believe earth’s surface was formed through both rapid
catastrophic processes (earthquakes, flash floods) and slow processes (plate
tectonics; mountain building; formation of coal, oil, & diamonds; coral
reef formation, etc.). OECs believe in
the Noahic Flood and God’s judgment on sinful man, but reject YEC “flood
geology.” (For those interested, the history of “flood geology” is a
fascinating tale, which first originated in the mid-1800s through the “divine
visions” of Ellen G. White, prophetess and founder of the Seventh Day Adventist
movement. See references below.44)

The
truth is that many geological features of earth simply do not support the YEC
flood-geology model. Christian geochemist W.U. Ault writes, “The serious Bible
student will not seek to support the physical aspects of Bible history with
pseudo-science.”45 Conservative theologian
Wayne Grudem comments: “[I] am not persuaded that all of the earth’s geological
formations were caused by Noah’s flood rather than by millions of years of
sedimentation, volcanic eruptions, movement of glaciers, continental drift, and
so forth…its advocates have persuaded almost no professional geologists,
even those who are Bible-believing evangelical Christians.”46

Young-earth
believers posit the 6,000 to 10,000 year-old creation just appears to be much older. OECs reject the “appearance of age” concept. The “appearance of age” theory was first conceived by Philip H. Gosse
in 1857. It was rejected in Gosse’s day, but was once again resurrected by John
Whitcomb in 1961. Theologian Wayne Grudem asks, “Why would God create so many
different indications of an earth that is 4.5 billion years old if this were
not true?” Hebrews 6:18 states, It is
impossible for God to lie. It is not in God’s nature to create something
young and fallaciously give it the appearance of age. The concept runs contrary to Romans 1:19-20:
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown
it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine
nature, have been clearly perceived ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

In the
final analysis, it is antithetical to God’s nature to create a young earth and
give it an artificial appearance of old age.

Creation of life and mankind

Both
young-earth and old-earth creationists believe God created all life. OECs
believe God created the earliest primitive micro-organisms on earth
approximately 3.8 billion years ago and continued to create life through the
“days” of creation (long epochs of time), including all plant life, sea and
flying creatures, land animals including primitive bipedal primates, and
finally humanity’s actual historical parents, Adam and Eve, God’s “crown-jewel” of creation, made in His image (Imago Dei).

Young-earth and old-earth views on God’s creation of plant-life reveal
significantly different interpretations of Scripture. The young-earth view is
well stated by John MacArthur: “He created them as fully mature, fully
developed…He did not create just seeds and cells…He made trees with
already-mature fruit…The garden itself was created mature, fully
functional, and therefore with the appearance of age.”47 But what does Genesis say?

And
God said, “Let the earth sprout [dasha] vegetation, plants yielding seed, and
fruit trees bearing fruit after
their kind, with seeds in them, on the earth,” and it was so. The earth brought forth [yatsa’]
vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is there seed,
each according to its kind.

The
old-earth interpretation differs in several important ways. First, the
old-earth view posits the sun is already present, having been created “in the
beginning,” as part of “the heavens and the earth” (ha’shamayim we ha’erets), as opposed to the young-earth view in
which the sun is not created until the fourth day of creation (the day
following the creation of plant life). Second, Genesis 1:11 does not literally
state that God created vegetation and trees fully formed. Rather, it says that
God commanded the earth to sprout vegetation
and trees. The Hebrew word translated “sprout” (dasha) means “to cause to sprout or shoot forth,” and “brought
forth” (yatsa’) means to “come out or
go forth.” There is no mandate that God created fully-formed plants and fruit
trees. Third, the Hebrew phrase translated “and it was so” in Genesis 1:3-31
merely indicates the completion of
God’s commands. (It is the waw-consecutive form of the imperfect verb “to be” and has the
completed action meaning.) This phrase does not mean that the
command was achieved immediately. It only indicates completed action (see footnote 34), but not
when the action was completed.48 “And it was so” means God’s command,
“the sprouting of vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing
fruit,” was fully completed. These
completed processes (“plants yielding seed and trees bearing fruit”) require
seasons and years, not just 24-hours. Textual evidence, therefore, seems to
favor a view much longer than 24 hours.

OECs
believe God created all life, from the simplest one-celled organism to the most
complex creature. Origin-of-life researchers are stumped in their quest to find
unguided naturalistic processes necessary for bringing life from non-life,
since even the simplest primitive organism is unimaginably complex. Francis
Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, comments, “An honest man, armed with all the
knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin
of life appears at the moment to almost be a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have
been satisfied to get it going.”49

Regarding
mankind, as noted earlier, the Genesis genealogies do not define the exact date
of the creation of Adam and Eve. Whether humanity’s parents were created less
than 10,000 years ago (YEC view) or more than 10,000 years ago (OEC view), both
OEC and YEC believe in the historical creation of Adam and Eve and the
historical Fall. They were at the headwaters of the human race and the result
of special creation.50 In contrast, “Theistic
Evolution” denies the historicity of Adam and Eve and the Fall. This has
profound theological implications, because the Fall of our historical parents
is inseparable from the origin of sin and the doctrine of redemption. If
mankind did not fall in Adam, we cannot be redeemed in Christ.

A quick
note from science: Recent mitochondrial DNA studies in human females and recent
Y-chromosomal studies in males trace all human origins back to one woman and
one man, who geneticists refer to as “Mitochondrial Eve” and “Y-chromosome
Adam.”51

Darwinian evolution

Many in
today’s secular society believe that Darwinism has reduced the Bible to a
foolish fairy tale. The “New Atheists” (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens,
Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett) routinely denigrate Christians as being
“flat-earthers who reject real science and believe in a 6,000 year old earth.” Evolutionists
incorrectly assume that an ancient universe makes Darwinism true, and YECs
mistakenly assume that since OECs believe in an old earth, they also believe in
evolution. Both assumptions are false.

Like
young-earth advocates, old-earth creationists accept “micro-evolution” (i.e.,
variation in bird beak size, development of bacterial resistance to
antibiotics, minor changes within species, etc.), but adamantly reject
Darwinian “macro-evolution,” which posits that all life originated from
primitive one-celled organisms that ultimately evolved by unguided naturalistic
processes into the broad diversity of plants and animals that have populated
planet earth.

Old-earth
creationists believe God supernaturally created all life over long ages of
time, allowing early species to die out and then create new species, “renewing
the face of the ground” (Psalm 104:29-30). OECs accept the geologic record as
an indication of the age of the earth, but contrary to evolutionists, believe
the fossil record more correctly reflects God’s creation of life rather than
evolution. For example, during earth’s geologic Cambrian Period (circa 530
million years ago), numerous complex life forms appeared abruptly in the fossil record with no prior historical traces. The
sudden and simultaneous appearance of more than 70 complex animal phyla defies
a naturalistic explanation.52 Complex Cambrian life-forms
just suddenly appeared, in agreement with Genesis 1:20-23. Paleontologists
refer to this as the Cambrian Explosion. Harvard evolutionary paleontologist
George Gaylord Simpson writes, “It remains true, as every paleontologist knows,
that most new species, genera, and families and nearly all new categories above
the level of families appear in the [fossil] record suddenly and are not led up
to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.”53 The fossil record actually
comports better with special creation than Darwinian gradualism. Mathematician
Granville Sewell writes, “[T]hose who claim that science has eliminated the
supernatural from Nature have a view of science that has been out of date for
80 years.”54

Further,
OECs believe the irreducibly complex biomachinery found in cells and the
complex specified information present within protein molecules and DNA code clearly and unequivocally point to an
Intelligent Designer—God. Renowned British Philosopher Antony Flew, a
former atheist, writes, “It is impossible for evolution to account for the fact
that one single cell can carry more data than all the volumes of the
Encyclopedia Britannica.” Herbert Yockey, physicist and information theorist,
states the universe is at least 1010,000,000,000 times too small or
too young to permit life to be assembled by natural processes.55 So whether planet Earth is
6,000 years old or 4.5 billion years old, it is still too young to generate life through naturalistic processes.

Death before the fall

Though
animal death before the Fall is not found in orthodox creedal statements,
today’s young-earth leaders treat it as a defining issue of Christian
orthodoxy. John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research,
states, “If death and fossils predate man’s sin, then the death of Jesus Christ
did not pay (sin’s) penalty, nor did His resurrection from the dead provide
eternal life.” While YECs reject all death before the Fall, OECs believe animal
death was part of God’s creation long before Adam was even created. The OEC
view is that Adam’s sin caused his spiritual death, eventually followed by physical death, and pre-Adamic animal death is
not related to man’s salvation or Christ’s atoning work on the cross. Here is
the Scriptural support for the old-earth position:

In Genesis 2:17, God warned
Adam in the garden, “For in the day that
you eat from it you shall surely die.” There was no mention of
animal death, just Adam’s death. Both John MacArthur (YEC) and Gleason Archer
(OEC) agree this was spiritual death
for Adam, followed hundreds of years later by Adam’s physical death.56 Neither Adam nor Eve
suffered physical death the day of the Fall. Following God’s warning, Adam
fathered Seth after 130 years followed by other sons and daughters, and then
physically died having lived 930 years (Genesis 5:3-5).

Romans 5:12 states that “sin came into the world through one man, and
death through sin.” The Greek word used for “world,” kosmos, is the same word used in John 3:16, “for God so loved the
world…” Though kosmos may mean
“universe” or “earth,” the most appropriate contextual meaning is “the
inhabitants of earth, men, the human family” or “the ungodly multitude of men
alienated from God.”57 The verse continues, “death came to all men [anthropos], because all
sinned.” This makes it clear that death came to men (Greek anthropos). Anthropos specifically refers to human
beings, not animals.58 Only man sins, not animals.
Animal death is neither mentioned nor inferred in Romans 5:12 and is excluded
by Paul’s use of the word anthropos. Writing
of death before the Fall, theologian Louis Berkof (YEC) writes, “All of this
does not mean, however, that there may not have been death in some sense of the
word in the lower creation apart from sin…”59 James Montgomery Boice (OEC) echoes Berkof: “But this does not really pertain to
the animal realm, in that animals do not have God-consciousness…[It] is
conceivable that animals could be created to enjoy a normal lifespan and then
to die without having any of the judgmental qualities death has for man.”60

1 Corinthians 15:21-22 is
similarly used by YECs to suggest Adam’s sin brought about all death, including
animal death. “For since by a man came
death, by a man also came resurrection of the dead. For as inAdam all die, so also in Christ all shall be
made alive.” However, the context clearly pertains only to mankind, with
humanity’s death being defeated through the resurrection of Christ. The passage
states those who die are the same as those resurrected and made alive in
Christ. If ‘all’ that die in Adam includes animals, then the ‘all’ made alive
by Christ must also include the animals. Certainly this is not the intent of
the text, since no mention is made in the Scriptures suggesting the spiritual
nature of animals, the moral capacity of animals, the need for animal redemption,
nor the physical or spiritual resurrection of animals.61

Job 38:39-41, 39:27-30,
penned prior to the Genesis creation
account, describes animal predation and death as part of God’s creation: Can you hunt the prey for the lion, or
satisfy the appetite of the young lions, when they crouch in their dens and lie
in wait in their lair?…The eagle mounts up and makes a nest on high…Spies out food; His eyes see from afar. His young ones also suck up blood; And
where the slain are, there is he.

Adam named the animals
before the Fall. (Genesis 2:19-20). Though Adam obviously did not know
Hebrew, the animal names chosen by the Divine Author suggest carnivorous
activity. The Hebrew word for “lion” (Strong’s number H738) means “in the sense
of violence.” “Cormorant” (H7994) means “bird of prey.” “Hawk” (H5322) means
“unclean bird of prey.” “Eagle” (H5404) means “to lacerate.” “Owl” (H8464)
means “do violence to.” The selected animal names suggest that Adam, in his
pre-fallen state, may have understood animal death and had likely even
witnessed it.

Psalm 104, a poetic
parallel to Genesis 1, alludes to the creation and extinction of life over eons
of time: When you hide your face, they
are dismayed; When you take away their breath, they die and return to the dust.
When you send forth your Spirit, they are created and you renew the face of the
ground. (Psalm 104:29-30) Over time animals die, return to the dust, and
are subsequently followed by new generations created by God.

Jon W. Greene

Guest author, Jon Greene is retired, having worked in the
pharmaceutical field. He is a trained apologist and is active in the
Seattle Chapter of Reasons To Believe.

The
issue of animal death pre-Fall is summed up succinctly by Augustine, who did
not consider animal death a direct result of the Fall. He wrote, “One might ask
why brute beasts inflict injury on one another, for there is no sin in them for
which this could be a punishment, and they cannot acquire any virtue by such a
trial. The answer, of course, is that one animal is the nourishment of another.
To wish that it were otherwise would not be reasonable.”62

Conclusion

Reflecting
on God’s days of creation, I conclude with the words of the late Gleason
Archer, Hebrew linguist, Bible scholar, educator, author, and champion for
biblical inerrancy. He wrote the following in Hermeneutics,
Inerrancy, and the Bible:

“Moses
never intended the creative days to be understood as a mere twenty-four hours
in length, and the information he included in [Genesis] chapter 2 logically
precludes us from doing so. It is only by a neglect of proper hermeneutical
methods that this impression ever became prevalent among God’s people, during
the post-biblical era. Entirely apart from any findings of modern science or
challenges of contemporary scientism, the twenty-four hour theory was never
correct and should never have been believed—except by those who are bent on
proving the presence of genuine contradictions in Scripture…Who can
calculate the large numbers of college students who have turned away from the
Bible altogether by the false impression that it bounds the conscience of the
believer to the 24-hour Day theory?”63

Other Resources

Dr. Ross looks the creation date controversy from a biblical,
historical, and scientific perspective. Most of the book deals with what
the Bible has to say about the days of creation. Ross concludes that
biblical models of creation should be tested through the whole of
scripture and the revelations of nature.

This book, written for Christians, examines creation paradigms
on the basis of what scripture says. Many Christians assume that the young earth
"perfect paradise" paradigm is based upon what the Bible says. In reality, the
"perfect paradise" paradigm fails in its lack of biblical support and also in
its underlying assumptions that it forces upon a "Christian" worldview. Under
the "perfect paradise" paradigm, God is relegated to the position of a poor
designer, whose plans for the perfect creation are ruined by the disobedience of
Adam and Eve. God is forced to come up with "plan B," in which He vindictively
creates weeds, disease, carnivorous animals, and death to get back at humanity
for their sin. Young earth creationists inadvertently buy into the atheistic
worldview that suffering could not have been the original intent of God, stating
that the earth was created "for our pleasure." However, the Bible says
that God created carnivores, and that the death of animals and plants was part
of God's original design for the earth.

The Hebrew word ‘olam is sometimes claimed to mean a
long time period. However, Hebrew lexicons show that only in post-biblical
writings did ‘olam refer to a long
age or epoch. In biblical times, it meant “forever,” “perpetual,” “lasting,” “always,” or “the remote past.” (See David G. Hagopian, Ed., The Genesis Debate : Three Views on the Days of Creation, 148.)

John Sailhamer, Genesis Unbound: A Provocative New Look at the Creation Account (Multnomah Books, 1996). (Note: Sailhamer is an Old
Testament scholar and was President of the Evangelical Theological Society in
2000. He holds an MA in Semitic Languages and a Ph.D. in Ancient Near East
languages and literature.) He also holds
a Master of Theology in Old Testament from Dallas Theological Seminary.)

Biblical Hebrew verbs
do not have tenses or express when an
event occurs. Unlike English verbs, Hebrew verbs indicate complete finished
action (perfect “tense”) or incomplete unfinished action (imperfect “tense”). A completed action may have been completed in the near past (24 hours
ago) or the distant past (eons ago).

Ellen G. White
(1827-1915), prophetess and founder of the Seventh Day Adventist movement was
the earliest proponent of “flood geology,” which came to her in “divine
visions.” White’s disciple, George McCready Price (1870-1963), a scientifically
self-taught armchair geologist, dedicated his life to the defense of White’s
vision and was first to coin the term “flood geology.” Flood geology was
rejected until the 1960s, when the mantle of flood geology was passed from
Price to Henry Morris and John Whitcomb, neither of whom had professional
degrees in geology. In 1961 they published The Genesis Flood, which turned innumerable Christians toward YEC. For
additional information, see Ronald L. Numbers, The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism (1992),
and J. Greene, “A Brief History of Flood Geology,”
www.reasons.org/files/chapters/seattle/200409.pdf.

Whitefield 71-72, 95. Whitefield
notes that the same consonantal phrase, “and it was so,” also appears in 2
Kings 15:12, Judges 6:37-38, and Amos 5:14. In all cases, completion of the
action does not take place immediately, but takes place over extended periods
of time.